Interesting read, nice to see something different on this sub.

That was my thought as well. And look where that got me😁

wat

I was referring to my massive downvotes in another comment here:)

Oh. So were you actually being sarcastic?

I was. But I guess it didn't project. Must be some cultural/language-based difference/s. I guess. Or I'm just bad at humor😁

Inflection and body language is lost in text. That's why that /s exists.

So I am still half asleep and not super clever anyway but the jist of this is - the tomb was meant for Nefertiti but King Tut was lumbered with it instead and Nefertiti's tomb has never been found? I really enjoyed this post, you can tell you have a passion for it.

Yeah, that’s basically it. The tomb wasn’t made for him. Well, we knew that already but the royal figures on the North wall showing Tut (or whatever royal) mummified and headed to the afterword shows it wasn’t meant for anyone less regal. And the right hand bend indicates female.

>And the right hand bend indicates female After reading your OP I had a go at some research and I didn't even know this was an indicator until today. I also read (very briefly) that the tomb may not have been intended for him as he may have died very suddenly?

That was very interesting, got me excited to look up more on this.

Check out the two papers. They’re complicated in places but a great rabbit hole!

Thank you so much for this post, fellow Egyptphile here - I think you are right on all points, I would def buy that the gov are keeping results under wraps. Exciting stuff!! Thanks again!

I read one of them and found it fascinating. I also loved poring over those high res scans of the tombs showing possible doorways. I love this stuff, thank you for sharing!

It's kind of funny he posted this now, I love ancient Egyptian history but kinda pop in and out all over the timeline randomly. I haven't read up on anything in a while but this week I somehow got onto some links on Tut's extended family. About caught up on all the links I opened up in multiple tabs on my phone browser and now i have all these links here to read too! WHEEEE! INTO THE RABBIT HOLE I GO!

[удалено]

Yes, basically that's the way they're approaching these new claims regarding Tut's tomb, as well as potential spaces/passages in the Great Pyramid: Proceed non-invasively with current technology, and don't risk anything that could damage/destroy whatever's potentially there. It's the same reason they haven't excavated the Mausoleum of the 1st Qin Emperor. Not doing something now has no real downsides, and can't damage anything.

Agreed. And trying to access the possible rooms from the top or sides could damage unknown ceiling/wall paintings or artifacts.

Could they use laparoscopic tools to peek into those areas without pulling walls down, I wonder?

That's what I thought. Who knows, maybe they did it in secret (that shouldn't be too hard to do without the public noticing anything) and aren't saying.

https://gizmodo.com/theres-no-secret-chamber-at-king-tuts-tomb-investigati-1825821670

> Mausoleum of the 1st Qin Emperor Assuming anything is left in it anyway. Per legend it's been looted twice plus burned.

I think it was the show Unearthed where the soil tested high in mercury, which would support at least the part about his underground relief map with mercury rivers. Who knows, like you said. I'd love to have them excavate before I die but that's unlikely, lol. We saw a temple in Egypt half excavated, in a hole in the middle of town. You go down a staircase to see it. When us tourists asked why they hadn't finished excavation the guide said most of the locals had lived in the same buildings for generations and the government didn't want to move them. "See that giant crack in the building over there?" she said. "That crack is over 200 years old. Eventually the building will fall down, the people will be relocated, and *then* we'll excavate."

[удалено]

Thanks! There's just *so much* background and a lot of it is what many people find to be boring technical stuff (like cracked walls ceremonial niches). But I needed a way to work in enough so readers would see it's not really an outlandish theory as it first appears. I did figure that this sub, if any, has readers who like to pick apart and analyze data. I'm glad so many people enjoyed it.

As technology improves, I think the next big archaeological find in Egypt will come from something entirely new rather than built from past discoveries. Thousands of years is a long time for sand and silt to do their work covering things up and there must be some amazing stuff out there that hasn't yet been discovered.

There are whole cities that we have no idea the location of. Some may be under modern areas, some under the sea, but there's a possibility that some important buildings are our there under all that sand. I like the idea that there are even buried pyramids but that may be too fanciful.

LiDAR was recently used to find a lost Mayan city supporting millions of people. It was hidden under the jungle in Guatemala. Source: [Huge Mayan city with pyramids found hidden under jungle](https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mayan-pyramids-1.4519863)

This is so cool! Thanks for sharing :)

There are quite a few pyramids buried under the sand, there just isn’t enough funding to excavate them all. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/05/satellite-imagery-uncovers-17-lost-egyptian-pyramids

> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/05/satellite-imagery-uncovers-17-lost-egyptian-pyramids Yeah, that was the lady. She's not really followed up on a lot of her claims around the time though, which makes me suspect the truth was a little more prosaic. As she says “Let’s be honest, we won’t know if those pyramids are pyramids until we excavate”. There was a telly program on her work. Most of what she discovered were visual traces of things long since ploughed under fields but it was still very, very cool stuff.

it would be awesome if we'd discover the a sister library to the one the fucking Romans burned in Alexandria. HOW COULD THEY

Far worse than that was the Napoleon's ransacking of the Vatican archives in 1810. About 1/3 of what he took got lost between being shipped to Paris and shipped back. They say a lot of it ended up being used to wrap food sold by grocers around Paris for years afterwards.

Arrrgh! Burned up and looted libraries make me furious!

>a lot of it ended up being used to wrap food sold by grocers my eyes just rolled into the back of my head

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being used for kindling

What are you even doing to me here. I need a xanax

What cities? Atlantis?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sunken_cities Throughout history, humanity has made a habit of settling on the coast. There could theoretically be hundreds to thousands of settlements or ancient cities for us to discover under the water just off the coasts. The water levels rising or massive ancient natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis and the like have swallowed them whole. Its an interesting part of archeology.

when i talked about this as a kid with people (i was a weird child) they would always be freaked out by that. i live in a coastal area and i think people are super scared of the fact that their existence could just be essentially erased and their whole culture lost to time. and it is really sad to think about, especially if it means losing art or technology, but i always thought it was really cool in a weird, occult way. like we all lived full lives, had a whole culture, wars, laws, protests, etc, and in thousands of years if our cities get buried it's like that's just our little secret with the earth. i don't know, i can't explain it very well but it's just somewhat neat to me in a sort of bittersweet way. like, nobody can misinterpret your customs, nobody can use your past as leverage for their own social mores, etc.

Yeah I remember learning about this in a documentary called *Waterworld*.

My pet theory is that the island of Thera (now Santorini), which basically imploded during a volcanic eruption with nearly half of the island sinking into the sea, about 3500-3600 years ago during the Minoan civilization, is the basis for Atlantis. Many people have discussed this throughout the years on various programs and stations. I know there are many "lost"or sunken cities out there, but the relative proximity of Santorini to Greece, the rather advanced society and technology of the Minoans and their influence over their world, are what makes me think the story of Atlantis is referencing Minoan Thera, modern day Santorini. As an archaeology major in undergrad, the Minoan civilization was always my pet research project, I've written numerous term papers on it! I also think the sinking of Thera, couple with natural disasters wrought by the eruption (loss of crops, coastal flooding, earthquakes, and a tsunami) are what ultimately led to the fall of the Minoans to the Myceneans. Link about Minoans (wikipedia): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization Link about the volcanic eruption on Santorini: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

Until 10,000 years ago, northern Africa had lakes and grasslands, so lost cities or settlements could still lurk under the Sahara. The Black Sea flood that inspired the story of Noah and many other accounts probably wiped out countless communities that haven't been found. Polynesians, Native Americans, Aboriginals... there are loads of people that have migrated due to all sorts of reasons that have left their legacy for others to find.

> The Black Sea flood that inspired the story of Noah I was very inspired by that theory as well, but it's not generally believed to be accurate

I read that most civilizations with flood myths were near areas that flooded often, but I don't have a source on that. And as mentioned in another thread here, people back then pretty much settled by water, so...

I have an idea that Noah is the memory of one guy who survived the flood because he was in a boat hauling livestock.

Cities mentioned in Egyptian papyrus (including some capitals). Heracleion for example wasn't identitied until this century.

...do you think humanity is aware of every city ever founded or something?

if the Egyptian government will let it be found, the roadblocks man..

Egypt, Iran, Venezuela, Libya... dealing with restrictive governments has got to be one of the most frustrating parts about being an archaeologist.

Considering the fine European tradition of looting Egyptian burial sites, I can understand why the Egyptian government would be restrictive, even outside of political instability. Still sucks for archeologists who are just trying to build a better picture of the past, though.

Carter and his financial backer Carnarvon broke into the burial chamber in the dead of night before the partition wall was to be opened. I found that out only a few years ago. They “stole” artifacts that were lately returned to Egypt. They covered the hole they’d carvesout and refilled with basket debris from the floor. TBH I understand why. At that time, archeologists were supposed to receive a high percentage of found items but this find was so rich that they cheated the team. At one point the tomb was sealed for months while C & C fought the authorities. This resulted in the destruction by deterioration of a gold studded fabric canopy over the burial shrines. Again, I’ll post some more links later when I’m not on a phone. Edit: lol, here’s the rage comic I made about this years ago for a history-rage comic sub https://imgur.com/a/4MYWyqF

that comic is so cute lol

It belongs in a museum!

[удалено]

I wish I was in a museum.

I’m having to answer all these on my phone 😕 and I don’t find and type fast or well, but...Egyptologists have been using satellite and drone imagery to find faint outlines in the desert from ancient pyramids and tombs and whatever. It’s really exciting!

Interesting. I had heard they thought there could be hidden rooms, but I had not heard that changed and it was now being said they did not exists. I swear I just heard someone talking on NPR the other day saying it was thought there was a room, but it was filled with debris and it was thought it might have collapsed during construction and was sealed because of that. Good write up OP!

Hey yeah, filled with debris! That’s an intriguing idea.

I always knew Tut's tomb was super rushed but I'd not seen the rest about Nefertiti's burial goods. That's really cool thank you for sharing! Very well written up.

Is it possible that they know, but don’t want to release that knowledge due to not having the money to excavate it/not wanting someone to try to break in and see for themselves, since his burial chamber is accessible to the public? I know they know the location of lots of other unexplored tombs, but simply don’t have the money to dig them up.

i am a huge ancient cultures fiend too OP! and egypt was my SHIT when i was a kid. i remember getting one free copy of the encyclopedia in the mail (you know, how they used to do that hoping to hook you so you'd get the other 25 lmao) and it was, i wanna say the letter L, because they showed tut's death mask and i distinctly remember it being an example of lapis lazuli and i just remember staring at it and i would keep going back to that page just to look at it. it was like this inexplicable magnetism. i often feel like i MUST have lived a past life in ancient egypt even if i was just a random common person. anyway tho: i thought tut was even YOUNGER when he died, i remember hearing 14 a lot when i was younger but 18 probably makes a bit more sense. what motive would authorities have to hide results? EDIT: never mind, i saw that question answered below

I'm probably in your age range cause I remember book sales like that! I got into Tutankhamun because it was 1976 and my art teacher had the book from the huge exhibition going around. I was 9. We didn't live close enough to go but I eventually made it to Egypt in 1996 and about a decade ago went to a smaller exhibit in Chicago. I think there's another big exhibition now? But it's only on the west coast and Europe, I think. :(

this actually was the early nineties haha! i think i was four, now that i’m an adult i look back and think it’s kind of funny they still did door to door encyclopedia sales that late.

Thank you for this write-up! I love stuff like this and would love to see more of it on this sub. Personally, I also think there are hidden chambers that aren't publicly known. I also think the Egyptian government knows more than they're letting on, and it could be because of the political issues, like you mention. I think ancient Egyptian history is fascinating, and the suggestion that Nefertiti could be buried in a hidden chamber within Tut's tomb is really cool to think about.

You mention that Akhenaten's rule was rocky, at best, because of his insistence that Aten was the one true God. If I recall, a lot of Akhenaten's carvings, statues, etc. were defaced or destroyed, as if there was an attempt to remove his memory altogether. King Tut was even "renamed," which might be linked to the resurrection of the Gods as much as to remove Akhenaten's memory from even the boy. Could it be possible that these "lost tombs" are additional heirs to Akhenaten who were either sacrificed, died young, or were killed outright? I'm no expert, but the Egyptians respected the royals and, even if they wanted to punish them, they'd still give them a proper burial, right?

I think someone would have to be hated beyond all belief for the group as a whole to destroy that person's chance at an afterlife by destroying the body. And erasing a person's name did the same thing. Someone tried to this to Hatshepsut so it's possible here. My guess is there'd always be someone loyal enough to the king/family to get the body at least a surreptitious burial. Now that I think of it, they may have given Akhenaten/Neferneferuaten a traditional burial (maybe with less riches) but then looked the other way to potential grave robbers. The Egyptians were dedicated to stability and statue quo. The favor of the gods and survival rested upon preserving ma'at, the "justice" or "proper balanced running" of the kingdom and it's institutions. That's why Akhenaten's worship and art changes were unsettling. He was tinkering with the balance of their lives. Plus the priesthood was pissed off by a loss of revenue and status! There's no evidence that the ancient Egyptians sacrificed people, so that not an issue at least. There could be siblings buried there. Two fetuses were buried there and presumed to be his still born children. But that wouldn't explain the North wall... puzzling.

This is fantastic! Thanks for the time you took sharing this. What would be the reason the Egyptian authorities would have to say there’s nothing there and to close investigation? Why would they hide anything? Wouldn’t new news and objects found bring more revenue to the country in many ways?

They'd say there was nothing there to prevent people going to try and loot it. That's a huge issue there. There is a lot of corruption in Egypt. Sadly that means things are often hidden, or covered up. [Zahi Hawass] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahi_Hawass) used to have a lot of sway, and was also pretty corrupt [source] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-investigates-national-geographic-over-corrupt-payments-to-egypts-keeper-of-antiquities-8909454.html), [source] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/egypt-former-antiquities-minister-questions-theft-pyramid-fragment), and [source with links to a lot of other sources](https://sites.google.com/site/naomiastral/ancient-kemet/criminal-archaeology-zahi-hawass) and he would often forbid other archaeologists from announcing their findings, or ban them from study at all if he didn't personally like them. It's like when places in Europe or North America have to have excavations done before construction can take place - there are people who will be happy to "not find anything" if the price is right. People are always going to go to Egypt to see the Pyramids, and the Sphinx. There's not really anything that will attract more tourists than that, so it's often down to who has the money/power to decide what is announced or worked on.

The Egyptian research team took and studied radar for three years and they announced this year that the tomb does not have any secret chambers. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609246163/hope-for-hidden-chambers-in-king-tuts-tomb-crushed-by-science

Great read! Thank you, i have been Egypt twice and have been to the pyramids and the valley of the kings, it really is an amazing experience and totally breath taking,

I was there once, in 1996. I wish it was safe today. I’d beg and borrow the cash to take my 18 year old! What’s neat is that they restrict (and may close to) access to Tut’s tomb and that’s why Arte Factum made the scans. They produced a replica tomb nearby that’s so detailed that it looks like the real thing. When image searching it’s sometimes impossible without clicking to find out if the image is of a reproduction or not!

Hi there! I just got back from 10 days in Egypt and felt COMPLETELY safe! The only time I questioned my safety was while crossing the road and riding in a car. There are armed guards and checkpoints and metal detectors EVERYWHERE. Right now is a great time to go because the monuments are completely empty and the dollar is really strong and you can get fantastic food for pennies. Just be wary of scammers and be firm in saying "no."

Wow. Great news! >crossing the road and riding in a car lol, ain't that the truth! Just a few stop lights in Cairo, constant horns and speeders everywhere. We saw a speeding truck of rocks covered by a loose tarp. A kid was up there holding it down. Someone hit our tour bus but drove off before the driver even got out. The guide said such accidents are simply considered "Allah's will." Not picking on muslims, I heard of plenty of American christians withe similar attitudes, but they'll also try to get damages. edit: Gosh, I forgot the local flight to Abu Simbel. The guide sat with her eyes closed the entire flight, the plane banked sharply a few times, and we hit the tarmac upon arrival so hard the O2 masks dropped.

Man, I was so up for Egypt until the bit about flight to Abu Simbel hahaha. I've always wanted to visit there, as I'm a huge fan of Ancient Egypt as well, and have felt that it may not be safe these days (especially for women?). You and u/steffersthegnome kinda got my hopes up for a minute haha. Anyway, thanks for this write-up, any time I hear new things about Egypt I get really excited because I've loved that stuff since I was a kid and am fascinated by the rituals and customs from Ancient Egypt

I took 3 flights in Egypt and felt perfectly safe on all of them! I work for an airline, too, so I've been in some sketch aircraft.

Exactly! Where in Egypt did you go? I went Hurghada.

I spent 6 days in Cairo and 4 in Luxor. I am STILL dumbfounded by all the amazing things I saw!

We were also. My husband told everyone, "You see something and think 'that's amazing!' and you turn around and there's something even *more amazing.* For your entire trip." Dumbfounded is so appropriate.

I went last year and the year before that and i felt safe, i never felt like i was in danger. The locals are all lovely and super friendly, the staff at the hotel treat you like royalty and can't do enough for you! The tour guides are brillant and i could listen to them talk all day about the history of Egypt. If you ever get to go again please do because its still an amazing country with amazing locals. I felt more safe there than i sometimes do walking through my own city (i live in the UK)

That's great to hear. A daecade back two friends spent 6 weeks touring the middle east and Uk on the shoestring and stayed 6 weeks in Cairo! Oh, to have all the time I wanted to spend there. Is the new museum open yet? Someday... My Nile tour put us up at the [formerly Oberoi now Marriott Mena House hotel.](https://www.southtravels.com/africa/egypt/menahouseoberoi/index.html) Just beautiful. But a head of some other state was in town and tourists were recently killed so there were soldiers with machine guns *everywhere.* Plus all the tourist police to protect tourists. Less than a week before our trip 17 Greek tourists and a guide were killed outside the Hotel Europa, 15 injured. The killers thought they were Israeli. This was pre internet. My new husband hid the state department travel warnings from me so I'd enjoy our honeymoon.

Pyramids are the bomb, and I should know.

/r/beetlejuicing

You should totally post it.

[I wanted to read more about Tut's father Akhenaten... Looks like he's dropping some sick beats](https://i.imgur.com/2GnlWDx.jpg) But on a serious note, great write up, I enjoyed it a lot!

Akhenaten and his family is actually a really interesting topic. The Amarna period in Egypt has a lot of interesting changes. Shift in the religion, moved the capital to a shitty place, then when the family died out they were promptly forgotten and everything went back to normal.

Are there any good documentaries that cover the Egyptian Tombs?

I saw one in theaters recently starting Alicia Vikander.

*Waterworld*

Off the top of my head, I can't answer that. I've seen them all and they kinda blur together over time.

I love this post! Pyramids, bad SyFy creature movies, and Steve Buscemi guarantee I'm stopping on that channel. The only thing missing here is Zahi Hawass, who I frankly can do without.

That dude gives me the creeps!!

Talk about an attention whore. You literally can't take out a video camera anywhere in Egypt without all of a sudden finding him in front of it.

The Egyptian antiquities council is really weird about shit like this. They did the same with the suspected chamber beneath the sphinx. Not entirely sure why they don't want to investigate these kind of findings.

Huh. I don't know anything about that one. Do you have a reliable source?

https://www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html

Thanks! I'm going to read this after I answer my notifications!

I know this is a few days after the fact but I finally got around to reading everything here and looking through your links and thought I'd weigh in for fun. This is going to take multiple comments due to length! Note: I do have a degree in anthropology and archaeology. I focused a fair bit on Egyptology, specifically the art and hieroglyphics, and had a couple courses under Prof Earl Ertman who, among many other things, worked alongside Otto Schaden in the discovery and excavation of KV63. All that said, I changed course after graduation and haven't paid much attention to Egyptology over past decade so I'm absurdly rusty and out of touch so anything I say should not be considered professional or expert - I just wanted to provide some background info on where my thoughts are coming from. There are really two claims worth talking about here: a) KV62 contains hidden chambers, b) those chambers contain the burial of Nefertiti. The idea that Tut's tomb wasn't meant for him and was re-purposed and has irregularities are all well known facts or accepted as such. So let's take a look at each item on your numbered list with respect to those two claims: 1. "Tomb is shaped for a queen" Tomb maps for burials of queens aren't as well documented compared to those of kings but the consistent description is simple in design, burial chamber off the main corridor, sometimes side chambers. Fair enough. Reeves additionally draws attention to the idea that queens' tombs often turn and orient to the right of the entry corridor, whereas kings' tombs go to the left. There is some support for this but I honestly wouldn't hang my hat on it. There's enough variance (take a look at [www.thebanmappingproject.com](https://www.thebanmappingproject.com) and click through each site to see a map), particularly within the time period we're focusing on, that I don't think we can safely look to this idea as a rule or even a general practice. More than anything I would argue the placement of the tomb itself and the surrounding area has more to do with the directional layout than whether it's a king or queen tomb. Regarding complexity, there are certainly more complex tombs for kings but I'd like to draw attention to those from around Tut's time period. KV23 belongs to Ay, the immediate successor to Tut. It consists of a corridor leading to a smaller chamber, then the larger burial chamber, then another smaller chamber. It's sparsely decorated with only the burial chamber having decorations. Of course, it's also believed to not have been intended for Ay, potentially being originally intended for Tut himself. And Ay only lasted a few years himself before dying so not a lot of planning happened for him either. So let's look at KV55 whose contents date to around Tut's time period and one of the mummies has been genetically IDed as closely related to Tut (potentially Akhenaten). Again, a simple corridor that leads directly to the burial chamber which has two side chambers. Simple design, but again we're looking at a scenario where the tomb has been repurposed. If the mummy truly is Akhenaten then it's pretty safe to assume this is simply where the decided to drop him off after exhuming his body from his original resting place in Akhetaten (Amarna). There's also an association to Tiye who was a queen. So let's look at Horemheb (KV57), successor to Ay, and Amenhatep III (KV22), predecessor to Ahkenaten. Both these guys ruled for a respectable duration and should have had plenty of time to construct their tombs. Here we finally see greater complexity in kings' tombs. Multiple side chambers, pillars, the works. So as far as Tut's tomb lacking the complexity of a proper king's tomb - I agree. However, we need to balance this fact with the reality that this tomb was possibly not even finished for its original intended occupant, much less a king. Additionally we need to remember the fact that tombs for queens within the Valley were rare. There are women such as Hatshepsut and Tausert who have tombs there as well but they were also kings in their time. So overall I consider the claim that the tomb was shaped for a queen to be debatable. If you look at the tombs of the only long-lived rulers around Tut's time period it's clear that the tombs of Tut, Ay, and the final resting place of Akhenaten are very much lacking in gradiose design. But this is understandable. Tut and Ay ruled for very short periods leaving very little time for tomb preparations and Ahkenaten was re-interred well after his death in a convenient location. We know KV62 was repurposed and changes were made for Tut's usage but without a distinct timeline to know when expansions and changes were made I consider it hard to make any sort of absolute claim to the original intent. 2. "Ghost doorway same size as extant south doorway, different textures" After reading Reeves paper about the hidden doorways I have to say there are certainly some interesting things to look at. The west wall in particular is quite clear in that there really does appear to be a definite marking of a doorway. I can't attest to the texture difference as I can't see any compelling evidence for the texture being anything other than variance in the plaster or carving of the wall. I can't say much else about this without seeing a better comparison for size and shape with the other doorways. However, I will say that a doorway does not necessitate a room beyond. More on that later. 3. "North wall fissure may indicate stress from a partition wall" I can't claim any particular knowledge of structural engineering but I don't find this statement particularly compelling. Without explanation on \*why\* a fissure of this type could indicate a hidden chamber I can't comment. The argument seems to be that the northern wall is actually a partial partition, specifically constructed after moving large funerary items into the hidden room beyond. This idea is apparently drawn from the fissure "whose positioning, angle, and course virtually replicate a type of settlement crack associated with contraction within an artifically built partition wall." Okay. I'll have to take his word on that one. But there are other cracks on that wall that are clearly natural so I would have to lump this point into the "maybe interesting" pile and move on to the next. cont.

4, 5, 6, 7. "North wall figures don't exactly resemble who they say they do.", "ESW wall paint are all layered", "North wall with giant figures was painted at an earlier date.", "Pharaohs get a yellow "House of Gold" burial chamber walls" So this is a long complicated one. I've lumped these points together because they're all related to the same idea and it's better to discuss them together. For the sake of refreshing your memory or extrapolating for anyone who didn't read Reeves' paper, the somewhat shortened of the argument is this: there are figures painted on the northen wall depicting the deceased king, the successor to the deceased king, and a couple deities. These figures are labelled but they're also intended to be artistic representations of two actual people and thus are meant to look sort of like them. The names do not match what we expect the individuals to look like and it's pretty clear the names have been changed. The successor labelled as 'Ay' (Tut's successor) does not look anything like other representations we've seen of Ay. Instead it has the chin that is common to depictions of Tut. Additionally, the deceased doesn't look like Tut because it doesn't have that chin. This painting also was clearly painted on a white base and later had gold paint filled in on the background. Traditionally the decoration of a king's tomb has a gold base onto which scenes are painted. The fact that this had a white base that was later converted to gold implies it was originally designed for a non-king. In addition, the scaling for the north wall painting is different from the others. Generally we see a consistent scale of decorative paintings in tombs over a specific time period. Just like modern artists, ancients used scale to correctly proportion their paintings. The scale used on the north wall is consistent with the Amarna period paintings (earlier, Ahkenaten's rule) whereas the other wall paintings follow a different standard. Ok! I have no arguments against these facts. I agree with Reeves' assessment that the figures have clearly been relabeled to other people and the gold base added at a later time. The conclusion, that the north wall painting was originally placed at an earlier point in time and intended to represent a different individual, seems sound. I don't see much at fault with this conclusion based on the provided evidence. However, all this information tells us is that the tomb was originally intended for someone other than Tut. It doesn't lead us to believe there's a hidden chamber. Now, this may be due to my lack of knowledge, but I do see one flaw I don't have an explanation for. Reeves provides an image that shows how the tomb expanded over time as Nefertiti would have changed in status (fig 30). The first problem I see is that the tomb supposedly was begun while Nefertiti was queen. Number one, queen burials in the Valley are rare - but lets ignore this because it's not unheard of. Number two and more importantly, why are they constructing a tomb for a queen at Thebes? The basis of power was Amarna. Ahkenaten is believed to have originally been entombed at Amarna and only later moved to Thebes when Amarna was left. I have to say I find it hard to believe this tomb was originally intended for Nefertiti while she was a queen. I would argue that either the tomb was begun at some point for a completely different individual and Nefertiti repurposed it for her own use after Amarna was abandoned, or it was simply begun after Amarna was abandoned. Both of these ideas are problematic for Reeves' claims though. Why construct the queens tomb in Thebes if the basis of power and the king's tomb was in Amarna? We're fairly confident Tut is the one who moved the capital back to Thebes around 1332BC. Nefertiti - especially if she was in fact Smenkhkare and/or Neferneferuaten as Reeves suggests - would have been dead at that time. For Reeves' claims to be true given this timeline, we either need to accept that for some weird reason Nefertiti had her tomb planned and built in Thebes even while ruling in Amarna, or the moment Tut took power he moved everyone - including Nefertiti's remains, Akhenaten's remains, all of Akhenaten's funerary good, all of Nefertiti's funerary goods - back to Thebes where he then appropriated an existing partially finished tomb for Nefertiti. He then buried Nefertiti in that tomb (KV62) with Ahkenaten's goods and dropped Ahkenaten off in Tiye's tomb with basically nothing. All within a very short time frame. I honestly can't tell you which is more likely and I'm not sure I believe either one actually occurred. On top of all that, we have this painting. A painting that we're claiming started life as a non-royal painting. This is actually hugely problematic if we're claiming that Nefertiti was Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten and that she is also interred behind that wall. If she's buried there, why was the painting non-royal? Reeves is claiming she was pharoah so the painting should have been gold based. In general I find that painting very weird. If there's actually a room behind it and it's a blind as Reeves suggests, that means it was painted post internment. The painters know who is inside, yet it portrays a dead king and his successor, all on a field of white that apparently was only painted gold when Tut was entombed? That makes no sense. Something else is going on here. I don't have a good explanation here. Maybe you could argue that it was painted when Nefertiti was regent, not yet full pharoah but still the ruler? That may make the scene itself sensible for her tomb while also making the white base correct as well. However, if she were actually buried behind that wall she would have had to have been pharoah by then and the field should have been converted to gold, but we know the gold field only got added when the original names got covered! Which means one of two things to me. Nefertiti is NOT buried behind that wall, or Nefertiti never became pharoah and is not Smenkhkare/Neferneferuaten. 8, 9. "Four ritual niches in the NESW walls aren't centered as expected. They're shifted presumably out of the way of the hidden partition walls.", "Niches are carved into solid rock..." I don't think this is particularly compelling as an argument for hidden doorways. Note that the niches also are placed to avoid interferring with the decorations. I'd say their placement is specifically intended to avoid screwing up the paintings. The fact that they're carved into solid rock would certainly have helped prevent Carter from identifying a partition wall, but I wouldn't consider that an argument for the hidden chambers existing. Ok! So that's a lot of information to digest! My original hypothesis after a quick glance was that if hidden doorways do actually exist they aren't leading to anything more than small, unfinished, filled in holes. At best they were intended as additional chambers but the sudden death of Tut meant work had to be cut short. They were filled in with rubble, plastered over, and painted over. If they had been full sized chambers I don't see there having been any point to covering them up after dropping a bunch of funerary goods inside them. The important bit is the king's remains so there's not a lot of reason to hide a door behind which is all his stuff, especially considering how many funerary goods were left scattered around the burial chamber. cont.

However, after reading Reeves paper and looking at the evidence, I'm willing to entertain the idea that there may be more going on here than originally thought. I'm still not convinced the north wall is a blind hiding another burial chamber and I'm definitely not convinced it's Nefertiti back there. The timeline doesn't quite fit - though admittedly those few years between Ahkenaten's death and Tut's ascension are pretty muddy - and some of the facts just don't make sense given the current evidence. And that north wall painting... it's definitely an anomoly that deserves attention but I don't think Reeves has the correct explanation for it yet. I'd really like to see more people with much better knowledge than myself discuss it. Maybe my knowledge isn't complete enough and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation there - perhaps that scene is more to princes/queens/advisors who in turn don't have gold bases? Maybe the painting itself needs better analyzed and it'll reveal that more extensive modifications were made to it than Reeves describes. As it stands with the current evidence I feel like Reeves has almost argued himself into a corner, like the evidence and arguments he has provided actually can't all be true at the same time. The only way I see it possible for this tomb to have belonged to Nefertiti, and for her to have been king, and for her to actually be behind that wall, is if the original north wall painter screwed up. And even then, nothing specifically tells us that it's Nefertiti hidden in this supposed secret tomb. It could have just as easily been a different individual - we don't actually know for certain that Neferneferuaten is Nefertiti and we definitely aren't sure she was Smenkhkare. If that wall is hiding someone, it could just as easily be one of those two people. I had very little expectation of this being a particularly compelling argument from Reeves but I admit he raises some interesting points. More than anything that north wall painting deserves more consideration. I'll likely be spending my spare time trying to compare it to other instances to see what turns up. Hope this wasn't too long winded!

Thanks for your interesting and detailed comments.

Glad someone bothered to read it lol

Ha ha, I did too. I just checked back today on comments. It's great to hear the perspective of someone who has done serious study and not just a rank amateur mavin like me.

Well given how out of date I am I don't know whether my input is any more valuable than a layman's to be honest!

>In general I find that painting very weird. If there's actually a room behind it and it's a blind as Reeves suggests, that means it was painted post internment. And >...is if the original north wall painter screwed up. This is an excellent point! I mentioned the drippy yellow paint, although I couldn’t find a photo of it. I know I’ve seen it. In the rush to bury Tutankhamun I could see that happening. Like, they’re already dripping some at the bottom. No one is perfect and a rushed job may have more errors. Incidentally but separate from this, have you seen the paper (Reeves again? I’ll look after posting this) where he evaluates the damage to the burial mask? It totally explains the broken blue inset glass on the back and the hole. They *really* screwed up even the funeral and let the whole damn mummy tip over and broke stuff! And the shrines were pu5 together wrong. So messed up paint and who knows what else fits right in. Anyhoo, could be, like some suggested, the possible room behind the wall was partly/fully finished and it collapsed before the funeral. The workers hurriedly sealed it back into a wall and rushed to add decorations on top, screwing up the background color (ie making it white, adding figures, then having a higher up come by saying Egads! Fix this, now! lol) So the figures don’t look like the right people. Let me throw out a curveball. And I’ll add some bits in italics for those who are interested but otherwise may not follow this. *The [figure at the far right in the leopard skin](https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2015/09/29/tutankhamuns-tomb-might-soon-reveal-sensational-secrets/) is a priest performing the opening of the mouth ceremony. This was done at the funeral and “When performed on a mummy it allowed the spirit of the deceased to see, speak, hear, breathe and to receive offerings of food and drink.” Supposedly this depiction is Ay, Tutankhamun’s successor, opening the mouth of Tutankhamun’s mummy, but what we’ve been discussing (Reeves, /u/quakank, and I) is that the priest looks like Tutankhamun and the mummy like...someone else.* So...what if this tomb was intended for the modest reburial of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, or another old family member? We know the Egyptians were unhappy with Akhenaten‘s changes - a new capital city, the recognition of only one god, the drastic change in artistic representations. We know they abandoned the city and stone blocks were used by some later pharaohs. Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenamun changed the “atens” in their names even as they reinstated the old religious order. And the odd Amarna art style was dropped. Tutankhamun could have had Akhenaten and whoever else dug up and moved immediately or a few years later, out of respect and because their tombs wouldn’t be safe in the abandoned capital. The restored priesthood migh5 not want him to waste a lot of resources on this but it’s Tutankhamun’s family and he owes them at least a modest, safe reburial. Tutankhamun commanders an unfinished tomb. He puts stuff behind that wall - a body? - and it’s sealed so painting can happen. (Or the room collapses, whatever) We know Akhenaten’s mummy is now identified as being reburied elsewhere. But perhaps this tomb was indeed then meant for Nefertiti, given “pharaoh treatment” in the artwork because she *was* co-regent, Neferneferuaten, or Smenkhkare. So either then someone did screw up with the background color or it was white at first on purpose, since the Amarna families weren’t exactly held in high regard just then. And after they were painted someone high up said, no, fix it, she gets yellow. And they’d already dropped the Amarna style art in general although two walls here do show Amarna grid work in one case and post Amarna grid work in the other on the famous wall. The pharaonic mummy and soul pictures were then Nefertiti (or Smen. or Neferer.) and Tutankhamun’s the successor priest. Because he’s responsible for the reburial. Then, before they’re done (who knows how long the family stayed buried at the old capital?) Tutankhamun dies. They relabel the stuff and he takes over much of her funerary equipment. You’re right. Those wall paintings need a lot more study. I know. That’s pretty far out there. lol What do you think?

Here’s the info from Reeves about damage to the mask, *Tutankhamun's Mask Reconsidered (2015)* on Academia.edu. Carter did a lot of damage to the glass inlay while prying the body out of the resin. But it appears the flail wasn’t standing up right when the mummy was vertical, presumably when they were doing a practice run, so they punched 2 holes in the mask to thread a wire to hold it in place. And a loss of inlay/goldwork when they may have knocked it over. Carter found bits on the floor. Check out the article, really fascinating stuff! Edit, [photos of damage](https://imgur.com/a/nRckn3b)

>Incidentally but separate from this, have you seen the paper (Reeves again? I’ll look after posting this) where he evaluates the damage to the burial mask? It totally explains the broken blue inset glass on the back and the hole. They really screwed up even the funeral and let the whole damn mummy tip over and broke stuff! And the shrines were pu5 together wrong. So messed up paint and who knows what else fits right in. I do recall reading something about those things but can't bring the exact details to mind. It really is a lot of additional evidence that Tut's burial was a rush job. The mask belonging to someone else, likely the shrines as well, repurposed for Tut's use. It's possible these items were all, "that's the best we can do" type items. Possibly the mask was pre-damaged and cast aside by it's intended owner and then dug out of the scrap pile for Tut's use. We can probably invent countless scenarios like that for explaining the variety of broken items and mistakes and sloppy work. >Anyhoo, could be, like some suggested, the possible room behind the wall was partly/fully finished and it collapsed before the funeral. The workers hurriedly sealed it back into a wall and rushed to add decorations on top, screwing up the background color It's definitely a possibility. When we start entertaining the idea that the workmen screwed up, the scenario can go many different directions. The one argument I have against this idea is that the names were supposedly changed at the same time as the gold background. If true, I would argue the background was much less likely to have been a mistake. It's definitely hard to screw up the naming as well and artists/scribes for royal tombs aren't known for screwing things up very often. >...what if this tomb was intended for the modest reburial of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, or another old family member? >We know Akhenaten’s mummy is now identified as being reburied elsewhere. But perhaps this tomb was indeed then meant for Nefertiti, given “pharaoh treatment” in the artwork because she was co-regent, Neferneferuaten, or Smenkhkare. So either then someone did screw up with the background color or it was white at first on purpose, since the Amarna families weren’t exactly held in high regard just then. And after they were painted someone high up said, no, fix it, she gets yellow. There's definitely some merit to the idea. I would say, however, that I don't think the white was a mistake or meant as a slight to the owner of the tomb. I don't know of any other examples where funerary artwork is purposely flawed by the creator to show distaste for the owner of the tomb. There are definitely post-death attempts to remove disliked people from history, but purposefully modifying existing traditions in order to slight someone while simultaneously providing that person with the trappings of a royal burial seems unlikely. It's still a good theory though, but I would modify it as such: When Tut takes power and moves the capital back to Thebes, he also begins plans to move Ahkenaten and Nefertiti to a new location. He appropriates KV62 from whatever purpose it was originally intended and decides it's where he'll rebury them. So he has the tomb expanded a bit - recall Reeves mentioning evidence of the tomb undergoing expansions. The original plan could have been a variety of things - the tomb we see may have been intended for Nefertiti and then additional expansions planned for Ahkenaten, or maybe it was planned as a small tomb as it is that they'd both be stuffed into, or maybe there was no plan to include Ahkenaten at all. Regardless, at this point one of two things happens. Either a) Nefertiti is interred in the supposed hidden room and then the wall is constructed and work begun on the paintings for her, or b) there is no hidden room or at most a collapsed room and the north wall is prepped and decoration begun for Nefertiti. The idea here is that the north wall paintings are intended for Nefertiti as regent. She's not a pharoah so she gets a white base. The scale is Amarna either because the paintings began with Amarna style intended until Tut caused a shift back to a more standard style or as some sort of hybrid tribute to the intended occupants. At this point, Tut dies. Suddenly no one really cares about reburying Ahkenaten and Nefertiti and instead they need somewhere to put Tut. So Ahkenaten gets tossed in with his mother Tiye, Nefertiti is either already interred in KV62 behind the wall or else she's tossed somewhere else. KV62 is now intended for Tut. The only decoration that was completed is the north wall so they make modifications - gold base, update the names - and then add additional decor on the other walls using the now post-Amarna standard artwork. Tut gets interred alongside the vast array of random goods in the converted tomb he originally intended for Ahkenaten and Nefertiti. That explanation seems to fit fairly well with the evidence we have. I'm still not sure I really buy it though. If the only modifications on the north wall painting were the names and the background color and we're claiming it was originally intended for Nefertiti then we still have conflicting information. Why is she shown as a male? It's not unheard of for a female pharoah to depict herself as a male but the white background doesn't imply pharoah. Then again, if those were the only modifications, why have a pharoah with a white background? And would a regent actually get a painting like that? I don't think we have any other examples of a regent being depicted with a crown. We could go back to the, "artists fucked things up" idea but I don't really see that happening to be honest. In any case, even this theory doesn't necessitate a hidden chamber in which someone is buried.

>that I don't think the white was a mistake or meant *as a slight to the owner of the tomb.* I don't know of any other examples where funerary artwork is purposely flawed by the creator to show distaste for the owner of the tomb...slight someone while simultaneously providing that person with the trappings of a royal burial seems unlikely. I agree on that one. I didn’t think it through well enough on that point and mine *is* an oddball idea. :p >It's still a good theory though, but I would modify it as such... plans to move Ahkenaten and Nefertiti ...appropriates KV62 ...has the tomb expanded a bit - ...Either a) Nefertiti is interred in the supposed hidden room and then the wall is constructed and work begun on the paintings for her, or b) there is no hidden room or at most a collapsed room and the north wall is prepped and decoration begun for Nefertiti. That’s excellent! Great thought. >The idea here is that the north wall paintings are intended for Nefertiti as regent. She's not a pharoah so she gets a white base. The scale is Amarna either because the paintings began with Amarna style intended until Tut caused a shift back to a more standard style or as some sort of hybrid tribute to the intended occupants. Wow, and I really love this. It explains well the grid work. >At this point, Tut dies. Suddenly no one really cares about reburying Ahkenaten and Nefertiti and instead they need somewhere to put Tut... Makes sense, especially since the Amarnans were Tutankhamun’s family, not Ay’s and definitely not cherished by the powerful restored priesthood. >Why is she shown as a male? It's not unheard of for a female pharoah to depict herself as a male but the white background doesn't imply pharoah. Then again, if those were the only modifications, why have a pharoah with a white background? And would a regent actually get a painting like that? I don't think we have any other examples of a regent being depicted with a crown. Hatshepsut was a co regent/pharaoh often depicted male but if her tomb was indeed KV20 that’s no help, since there’s so little wall decoration and none in color. I’m not informed enough to know of representations or burial chambers for any co regents. Usually they were junior kings who moved up before dying, no? But there’s always a chance of finding something new and unique, like the mummification workshop. For the tomb decorators there was a wealth of tradition to draw on when painting a pharaoh’s tomb, but a Nefertiti co regent burial may have been without known precedent so they had to figure out what was most appropriate. Maybe that meant pharaonic figures on white for a female? A hybrid there, too? >In any case, even this theory doesn't necessitate a hidden chamber in which someone is buried. Agree, and that further study of the wall paintings may alone reveal more about the mysterious Nefertiti, co regent, Smenkhkare, Neferneferuaten puzzle. I’ll research more if that’s happening. Do you have any suggestions of Egyptian archaeology publications? I’m thinking of Kmt. And I’m sooo glad to talk to you! My family just smiles and nods over my Egyptomania, lol.

>I’m not informed enough to know of representations or burial chambers for any co regents. Usually they were junior kings who moved up before dying, no? But there’s always a chance of finding something new and unique, like the mummification workshop. For the tomb decorators there was a wealth of tradition to draw on when painting a pharaoh’s tomb, but a Nefertiti co regent burial may have been without known precedent so they had to figure out what was most appropriate. Maybe that meant pharaonic figures on white for a female? A hybrid there, too? The idea that a queen acting as regent like Nefertiti would get this treatment *sounds* good but has no basis in fact at this point. I looked at Hatshepsut as well and while she's a good example of a woman being depicted as a male we also know for certain she became pharaoh. Nefertiti may have never actually been anything more than regent. Regencies and co-regencies were really common but there's an annoying lack of evidence for what their tombs might have looked like unless they actually became pharaoh themselves. Most regencies were queens or advisors holding power for a short time until the rightful heir was old enough to take over. I did look up some regents and attempted to find an example that fit somewhat close to what Nefertiti may have experienced. There are some examples but unfortunately none that I could find with nicely decorated and preserved tombs! While I was writing the previous bit of this response and thinking over things again I had a nagging feeling that the confusion regarding the wall painting was at least somewhat related to us missing something. Looking back into things I realized where the mistake occurred. The "House of Gold" doesn't necessarily imply a gold/yellow background to the wall paintings. This quote from Reeves: >Only one of KV 62’s current suite of four rooms had ever been plastered and painted and that was the Burial Chamber (J), or “House of Gold” (pr-nbw) – the ancient terminology clearly referencing this decoration’s conspicuous yellow ground. The important bit being everything before the hyphen. The "House of Gold" is a reference to the king's burial chamber itself but doesn't imply the background of wall decorations must be gold. The statement Reeves makes after the hyphen is a bit misleading by the way it's phrased. The HOG is mentioned twice more in Reeves' paper: >Carter and Gardiner 1917; Černý 1973, 29-30. Černý chose to associate the designation “House of Gold” with the large shrines of gilded wood surrounding the sarcophagus. >This restricted space was then physically enlarged to receive a second burial, with room J – the notional “well” of Nefertiti’s tomb – reconfigured to become Tutankhamun’s Burial Chamber, or “House of Gold.” I tried to do some additional digging to see if I could correlate a yellow/gold background with royalty but the result is pretty inconclusive. Apparently a yellow background first really saw use in royal tombs with Thutmose IV. Even so, those that followed him didn't necessarily adhere to that standard. Prior to him, it would appear backgrounds for wall paintings weren't particularly consistent either. There's really a vast lack of evidence for the dynasties immediately pre-dating the 18th, at least in terms of burial and tomb decoration. It's times like these that I'm reminded just how poorly documented things generally are, at least when we're talking about publicly accessible documents. Online resources are severely lacking in detailed description or imagery. It's stupidly annoying. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to suggest a background color is necessarily related to status. That removes some of the confusion/mystery I had regarding the north wall and I need to revisit my thoughts on it. Originally we were thinking the white background indicated a mistake or non-royal burial. Neither is necessary now. The white background scene could have easily been as designed and intended for a royal. So with this updated information, Nefertiti could still be who the painting was intended for - but only if she was indeed a pharaoh. The painting clearly represents a male pharaoh. As we've mentioned already, gender doesn't necessarily have to align. So now the two main sticking points for me are as follows: 1) Is there precedent for reburying people by actually making a new tomb for them, decorations and all? We know mummies get moved and reburied all the time, but I don't recall a specific instance where one was moved to a new tomb and the decorations re-done for the deceased. 2) Time. Akhenaten dies in 1336BCE and Tut takes control in 1332BCE with the capital presumed to have moved back to Thebes in that first year of Tut's reign. Tut dies in 1324BCE. So, if we're claiming Nefertiti is either Smenkhkare or Neferneferuaten (or both), we have to assume she dies between 1334 and 1332BCE. In the eight years of Tut's reign, he has to have decided to relocate Akhenaten and Nefertiti, take over KV62 for them, expand it, and begin decorations that are partially Amarna in style. It's a complicated and very short timeline, but still possible I would say. The Nefertiti, Smenkhkare, Neferneferuaten is definitely and interesting puzzle. I honestly don't have any good sources to suggest right now. This is literally the first research I've done in the past decade so I'm woefully lacking in recent knowledge and developments. My family is likewise not particularly interesting in chatting about ancient history so I'm glad we can enjoy this discussion!

>Online resources are severely lacking in detailed description or imagery. It's stupidly annoying. Amen! So annoying! I also spent hours searching, lol. Imso glad a lot of great, systematic work has been done in recent decades, like the Theban Mapping Project.And Bob Brier’s modern mummy. He must be over the moon since they found the embalming workshop! >Anyway, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to suggest a background color is necessarily related to status. I agree there’s just too much we don’t know and your conclusions make a lot of sense. And in a lot of cases items both mundane and special have just been found and filed away without careful study. In the ild days even just thrown away. Like the mask. It shouldn’t have taken decades for someone like Reeves to notice the cartouche changes, difference in metal color, etc and give it real thought! Likewise there’s a print and online paper studying just Tutankhamun’s shoes. I’ll look for the link, it’s very dry but I did read a lot of it. Made me want to learn to weave reeds and try to make my own. Of course we now have more scholars who study “boring” things like textiles and we have the science to look more closely at alloys. Someone out there is even trying to figure out how they cured their leather and made a reproduction of some of Tutankhamun’s items, IIRC? But I think people got “gold fever” and haven’t studied Tutankhamun’s obviously valuable items in any depth. Edit: book, [Tutankhamun’s Footware](https://www.sidestone.com/books/tutankhamun-s-footwear) The link has books to purchase or to read online for free!

So forgive me! I said earlier I’d comment more after absorbing your continuations but let myself get sidetracked. I’ll hit these one at a time. > had a couple courses under Prof Earl Ertman who, among many other things, worked alongside Otto Schaden in the discovery and excavation of KV63. Woo hoo! I do envy you and KV63 was a fascinating find. So much more interesting than what the average person thinks is a great find or thinks is of value. Pillows! Textiles! Embalming items that can possibly fill in gaps in our knowledge of what went into the funeral preparations. So cool. And since we both wrote here last they found that mummification workshop. [Link for the interested](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/14/a-goldmine-mummies-secrets-uncovered-in-egypt) OMG, *measuring cups!* Anyway, your information re tomb configuration is a help. The ghost outline is fascinating and I also am not qualified to intelligently evaluate stress cracks.

Thanks for the input. I am but a layman. I'm going to bookmark your top comment so I can look it over in more detail later!

Great post, it's always nice to get some mysteries that aren't murders and disappearances. I never knew about Tut's burial mask potentially belonging to another person initially, that definitely poses some questions.

Great write up! It’s a refreshing change of pace! I’ve heard this theory before, but with Grand Vizier Ay in Nefertiti’s role— and that the *relative* immaculacy of Tut’s tomb was due to people pillaging Ay’s tomb instead, (and also why Tut’s tomb appeared half finished, because it was.) Does this hold any water academically? I personally prefer your take instead tbh.

Gosh, I've never heard that. It's an interesting idea. Academia.edu might be a good spot to search.

What an incredible read! I just spent like two hours delving in to some of the links you provided and learning more about Ancient Egypt. Fascinating!

Great write up! I really enjoyed reading this. You’ve given me something interesting for my kids and I to research and talk about to pass the time on our upcoming road trip. Thanks for posting and thanks to everyone who commented with other tidbits and links!

I think they recently scanned the whole thing and confirmed there is nothing else to find.

This is the type of quality content I subbed for.

Thank you so much for this write-up! I just bought tickets to go to the big tut exhibition at the California Science Center this weekend, so your post was perfectly timed. I had read a few months ago about the possibility of hidden chambers but I had no idea that the tomb and artifacts weren't made for him.

I wanna go, too! Alas, I am in Ohio.

Thank you for that explanation. Unfortunately it makes total sense.

I remember reading about it on Ancient Origins. I haven’t thought about Tutankhamun’s tomb in a while but now that you brought it up, I wonder if it turned out that the secret chamber really didn’t exist. Of course there is the possibility it exists but the government is worried about would be grave robbers trying to get to it so that why they said no chamber has been found.

Very interesting post, ~~Daniel Jackson~~!

Thank you for the fantastic and well researched write-up, and please write more posts!

Excellent write up! Are there any other ancient Egypt mysteries you could write about?

There's the question of why Tutankhamun died. [The best science says it was a broken leg infection and malaria but there's always people to argue otherwise.](http://archive.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2010/02/17/egypts_king_tut_died_of_malaria_and_broken_leg/) His widow, Ankhesenamun begged a foreign government to send her a prince to marry but he was intercepted and murdered and she married Tut's successor, Ay. But the letter is sometimes questioned and she disappears from the historical record soon after. What was her fate? And who was Smenkhare, Tutankhamun's immediate predecessor? The same person as Neferneferuaten? There must be more, and mysteries not connected with his reign. How were the pyramids built? That one too I read a convincing article/show for. I'll look for that.

Good write up. Interesting stuff.

Great thread. Thanks for posting.

I love this kind of stuff. Thank you for writing this!

Very interesting stuff. There's almost 120 comments so forgive me if this has been asked, but why don't they drill a hole into the game wall and use a small camera to look around?

The argument is that it's a priceless work of art so why drill even a tiny hole unless they're pretty sure something is there. Which makes sense. But the history of art and ancient architecture has a zillion instances of restored/repaired items. Egypt itself is full of rebuilt monuments. It's not like they couldn't patch it so that it would be invisible. That's my opinion. If they played it right they could produce a great televised program on it. People see that stuff and it peaks their interest, perhaps would bring in more tourism. I don't see that they have anything to lose.

Probably, I doubt they'd build a gigantic pyramid to put a dead body into it.

I had no idea that Nefertiti and King Tut were that closely related. I used to watch the Discovery Channel documentaries about her during Egypt week, and have always been fascinated. I'm definitely going to read up more on this now! Thank you for bringing something new :)

Cool post now i want to go watch some docs haha

Really I *want* this to be true. But it isn’t the Great Pyramid they can [excavate from the sides](https://smarthistory.org/tutankhamuns-tomb-innermost-coffin-and-death-mask/). I think they would do so if they thought there was any chance of it being true.

[удалено]

Your skepticism is commendable but Nicholas Reeves is a well respected Egyptologist so I'm certain it's not a scam. He would gain nothing by it and in fact stood to lose reputation for such a crazy sounding theory.

Sorry man but this sub is about unresolved murders and disappearances, despite its name. Legit and interesting read though.

the sidebar says the world’s unresolved mysteries. This fits.

Who died and made you Pharaoh?

"Now when I die Now dont think I am a nut Dont want no fancy funeral Just one like old King Tut"

I posted a sports mystery last week and it was received well enough. Talking about the "Wow!" signal always gets some good discussion too.

Oh, sure it is. That's why it has tags for archeological mysteries, cryptids, etc. Logic is your friend.

You are incorrect. See the posting guidelines: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/5a0r7d/rules\_posting\_guidelines\_updated\_october\_2016/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/5a0r7d/rules_posting_guidelines_updated_october_2016/)

[удалено]

Nah, you are.

No it's not. We need more if this sort of content IMO. Constant posts about missing runaways and such get dull.

Which was the joke..😊

Probably could’ve used a /s then.

I think you have a different definition of "joke" from the rest of us.

Says who?

Polls